A letter to the Atheists

[Pah]

good I wasn't sure if we were on the same page with that

It seems that the reverse is true. Luke used Mark and Q as his sources for his gospel

Now how can we be on the same page if the reverse is true???

It has also been said that Luke corrected the poor grammer of Mark

Bob

 

[chuck010342]

Now how can we be on the same page if the reverse is true???

It has also been said that Luke corrected the poor grammer of Mark

Bob

I don't know if your beings sarcastic but I was speking in two different contexts.

Yeah it has been said that but it depends on your historical interpetation of the texts

 

[mahayana]

The Bible I was given as a child "Standard Revised Version" (Whittemore Associates, 1952), explains the authorship of each book of the New Testament in a section at the back. To paraphrase:

"According to Matthew" came from oral tradition...first became known between 80 AD and the end of the 1st century...among the churches in or near Antioch...before this book was written, there must have been a shorter collection, mostly of Jesus' teachings...(as) there is material that is the very same in Matthew and Luke.

"The Gospel of Mark...is the earliest...written about 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus was crucified...by John Mark (not a disciple)...who reportedly went with Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey, but turned back...was with the apostle Peter when Peter went to Rome. (The book) gives some of Jesus' teachings, mostly tell of what Jesus did...nothing about Jesus' birth or his boyhood.

"The man who wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts was Luke- the Luke whom Paul in Col.4.14 called "the beloved physician:...Luke did not live in Palestine at the time of Jesus...put into his gospel many of the incidents that Mark had told first...used older collections of teachings of Jesus.

"John...last Gospel to be written...does not tell in plain words who wrote it..."the disciple ...whom Jesus loved"(John 20.2} is said to be the author at the end of the Gospel "this is the disciple who has written these things" John 21.24. The early church believed that the disciple whom Jesus loved especially was John." (they decided who wrote it)

 

[cardw]

VOR is correct about the challenging that goes on here. At best, these discussions are like debates; you learn new things, refine your opinions. At worst, the people talk past each other, and you gain insight into how differently folks approach their deeply held conclusions, faith, doubts.

I like your attitude. I don't have anything against evolution or atheism. I also have nothing against believing in God. I don't happen to believe in God as anyone defines God, but I'm not willing to say that there is no higher power.

Most things in this world are deeply mysterious. We can certainly observe and predict how things will behave in controlled environments and extrapolate that there are laws for all behaviors we observe.

I'm not willing to relegate these mysteries to a specific definition of God since I have observed and read how these particular versions of God can cause a lot of suffering to those who disagree.

One of the most mysterious aspects of reality for me is the fact that we are conscious beings. Consciousness doesn't seem to have any relation to the physical universe other than its influence through the actions of the beings it inhabits. This mystery has been worth exploring.

It is too bad that this world is not a place where everyone can freely explore this and other questions without oppression.

 

[s2a]

*sigh*

I just read through all 11 pages of this thread, and that's time I'll never get back, even from the mystical "watchmaker" in the sky.

[Those that were recipients of lent frubals in this thread, be not discouraged by my unhappy observation. Even cow dung has especial properties that make it a valid source of energy and light, when appropriately burned.]

 

[YmirGF]

*sigh*
I just read through all 11 pages of this thread, and that's time I'll never get back, even from the mystical "watchmaker" in the sky.
[Those that were recipients of lent frubals in this thread, be not discouraged by my unhappy observation. Even cow dung has especial properties that make it a valid source of energy and light, when appropriately burned.]

Admittedly I was a bit puzzled by the watch in the desert homily. Honestly, if I found a watch in the desert I would assume some fool had dropped it, lol. *sigh*
The idea assumes I don't know what the heck a watch is to begin with. *double sigh*
Since I am well aware of timepieces and planetary motion, Peace's diatribe just did not have much impact on this small lump of flesh. Oh... I get it... I am supposed to pretend that I don't know the nature of something in order for a silly explanation to "work". *sigh* One can only wonder why people bother with such weak thinking while giving the impression of deep "meaning". :sleep:

 

[eudaimonia]

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped the watch? Would you suppose that the watch came by itself?Of course no sane person would say that the watch just happened toemerge from the sand.

Since watches don't have DNA, don't reproduce, and can't be explained through simple chemistry, I'd think it was designed.

Consider the sunrise and sunset. Their

timings are so strictly regulated that scientists can publish in advance the sunrise and sunset times in your daily newspapers.

They aren't "regulated". This presumes that they could be "unregulated", and there is no evidence that this is even possible.

Consider also that we benefit from the sun only because it remains at

a safe distance from the earth, a distance that averages 93 million miles. If it got much closer the earth would burn up. And if it got too far away the earth would turn into an icy planet making human life here impossible.Who decided in advance that this was the right distance? Could it just happen by chance?

Yes, it did happen without planning, and that's why life evolved here instead of elsewhere.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cordoba]

Hello Mark:

On your last comment, do you know what are the probabilities of life evolving by chance?

The Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence"

According to Prof. Penrose, a famous British mathematician, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.

That is 10 to the power 10 to the power 123 to 1 !

http://evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse03.htm

 

[eudaimonia]

On your last comment, do you know what are the probabilities of life evolving by chance?

No, I don't, and neither does Penrose. This is still largely a matter of speculation and questionable assumptions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[s2a]

Hello Mark:

On your last comment, do you know what are the probabilities of life evolving by chance?

The Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence"

According to Prof. Penrose, a famous British mathematician, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.

That is 10 to the power 10 to the power 123 to 1 !

http://evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse03.htm

Oooh! Oooh!

*raises hand*

I know the answer to this one (and I'm not even a mathematician)!

The odds of life occuring on Earth is 1:1.

100%

Falsify that.

 

[Cordoba]

Maybe it's because you are not a mathematician s2a

Here is what another professional mathematicial physicist has to say on the Big Bang:


The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing.

According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10^18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:

Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed.

It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.19

http://evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse03.htm
​

 

[s2a]

Maybe it's because you are not a mathematician s2a

Here is what another professional mathematicial physicist has to say on the Big Bang:


The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing.

According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10^18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:

Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed.

It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.19

http://evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse03.htm
​

Astonishing!

"Exquisitely arranged".

Why that's, astonishing!

I'm...astonished!

Or perhaps not...

The argument at hand is more semantical than mathematical, predicate upon the question posed.

Solve to answer:
1) "What is the probability that the cosmos would evolve to it's current state?"
...or...
2) "What is the probability that the cosmos would not evolove to it's current state?"

Either the cosmos does, or does not, exist in it's current state (as much or as well as we can measure and observe).


Now, a slight variation:
1) What is the probability that the cosmos will continue to evolve from it's current state?"
...or...
2) What is the probability that the cosmos will no longer evolve (ie, remain utterly static) beyond it's current state?"

Now, let's be bold, and mathematically solve the probabilities of these proposed hypotheticals:

"What are the odds of Abraham Lincoln becoming president, if he had never been born?"

"What are the odds that brown squirrels are just figments of our imagination?"

"What are the odds that the claimed god of Judeo-Chrsitian belief does not actually exist?"

"What are the odds that if I travel back in time, and kill my grandfather, I therefore cease to exist? If so, then how do I ever exist to travel back in time to kill him?"

Paradoxical, ain't it?

How does one solve for the statistical probability of an event/circumstance/phenomena that has never taken place? One might conclude the answer to such questions as being statistically impossible in probability. In "fact", mega-quadrillions to one, against such a possibility!

"If things had been different...things would then be different!"

Astonishing!

I existed 15 minutes ago, while I wrote this reply.
What are the odds that the above statement is true?
What are the odds that you never read this sentence?

Place yer bets...

 

[Tiberius]

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped the watch?

The watchmaker argument has been thoroughly destroyed.

If we are to conclude that the universe needs a creator because it is so complex, then why is it that God, who is even more complex, does NOT need a creator?

And if God can exist without needing a creator, why is it that the universe can't be without a creator in the same way?

 

[Cordoba]

Hello Tiberius

The answer to your question is that God is Eternal

He is not constrained by time as He is the Creator of time and of all that exists in this universe and what is beyond

He is The Necessary Being / First Cause

 

[Tiberius]

The first cause argument has been shown false as well.

 

[logician]

The ultimate question for theists, is, of course, who or what created god, if intelligence or life cannot originate on its own.

 

[love]

If the the universe had a begining, what came before that?
If it has an end what comes next?
If it did not exist what would?

 

[Gentoo]

The ultimate question for theists, is, of course, who or what created god, if intelligence or life cannot originate on its own.

Does that really matter though? I'm a theist, but I don't think it matters, all that's important is that I believe the Gods are there, and that life does exists. I believe that things simply ARE, and that's more than good enough for me

 

[Cordoba]

The ultimate question for theists, is, of course, who or what created god, if intelligence or life cannot originate on its own.

The answer to that question is nobody

Why?

Because God is Eternal

The laws of Cause and Effect are the laws He designed in His creation, but that does not mean He is constrained by His laws

(example: a software engineer who designs a robot is not constrained by the same software which makes the robot function)

 

[love]

God is eternal. He always was and always will be.